[1.9.1+] OPT Legacy 3.1.2 | Reconfig 3.4 [Apr 20, 2021]

[AkaiAndromedus]

I require some assistance figuring this out;

Screenshot of on-screen error.

Module Manager log

KSP Log (Or the closest I have)

From the error it gave me, it seems to be an issue with OPT/B9 Part Switch, but when I remove the OPT mods, the game loads just fine, so I'm pretty sure it's either an installation error or a bug. The KSP version I am running is 1.8.1(due to Kopernicus requirements).

[bcqJC]

Have you installed the applicable version (to your KSP version) of Community Resource Pack.  I had a similar issue before and installing the latest CRP stopped B9PartSwitch from spewing errors.  I'm on KSP1.9 with CRP1.3.

[AkaiAndromedus]

12 minutes ago, bcqJC said:

Have you installed the applicable version (to your KSP version) of Community Resource Pack.  I had a similar issue before and installing the latest CRP stopped B9PartSwitch from spewing errors.  I'm on KSP1.9 with CRP1.3.

I have tried that, which is why I am having an issue trying to figure out what's going on. I'll see if any of the other versions of CRP work, and I'll get back to you.

[Northstar1989]

@JadeOfMaarso, I love all the time you put into this mod, and hope you continue to make it better- here's a couple things I noticed that need some tweaking along those lines...

- The J Fuselage parts (those are the more modern ones vs the 'Stail' line, you said, right?) lack a J Fuselage to 2.5 meter adapter with 1.25 meter shoulders, like the Stail parts have.  Heck, they lack any adapter to 2.5 meter diameter at all (extremely useful for some purposes...)

- The ISP's on the linear aerospike engines appear to be far too high for Stock KSP. They appear to be based on real-life ISP's for HydroLox. Fine values for a Real Fuels config.  But their ISP (330-430 seconds as I look at it in the editor this moment!) exceeds that for any vacuum-optimized chemical rocket engine in the Stock game: including the Wolfhound! (380 seconds ISP in vacuum).

I suggest an ISP range of 335 to 385 seconds (rather than the 330-430 we have now) for these engines, based on what aerospikes are supposed to do (great sea-level ISP while still also obtaining vacuum ISP comparable to vac optimized engines- in exchange for higher cost and complexity) as well as some actual numbers on their efficiency (339-439 for the XRS-2200, vs. 366-452 for the SSME: the RS-25- both use HydroLox rather than Kerosene, and the SSME's had some of the highest vac ISP of any rocket engine ever used...)

In short, the sea-level ISP is mostly fine (they are supposed to burn 25-30% less fuel than a comparable bell nozzle for the same sea-level Thrust: i.e. 25-42% higher sea level ISP!), but the vacuum ISP needs a MAJOR nerf (they are currently more than 13% more efficient than the best conventional vacuum engine in the game!)

As they stand, the linear aerospikes are far too good in vacuum- which makes no sense when their intended benefit is in-atmosphere (although they also have *VERY* high TWR for a vacuum engine of such high ISP in real life...)

Their Thrust, although considerable, could use some buffing- but their mass is too low.  These engines are 2.5 the cross-sectional area of a Mainsail, yet have slightly less Thrust and only similar mass (their Thrust and mass should BOTH be raised: both are too low...)

 

TLDR: I recommend increasing both the Thrust and Mass of the linear aerospikes (this will make them more powerful overall, and bring them more in line with Stock parts of similar cross-sectional area- **as well as reduce the need for part-spam**) but the Mass by more (TWR is currently too high for an aerospike: though nerfing their TWR won't hurt spaceplanes much).  Decrease vacuum ISP by a LOT (45 sec)- which currently exceeds dedicated vacuum engines like the Wolfhound by a very large margin.  Buff sea-level ISP slightly (5-10 sec).  Also, in rease part-cost (should be just over double what it is now)

 

Overall this is a nerf, due to the large drop in vacuum ISP and increase in cost/mass: but the increases to Thrust and sea-level ISP will at least make them better for their intended/realistic purpose...

Edited June 9, 2020 by Northstar1989

[JadeOfMaar]

10 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

- The J Fuselage parts (those are the more modern ones vs the 'Stail' line, you said, right?) lack a J Fuselage to 2.5 meter adapter with 1.25 meter shoulders, like the Stail parts have.  Heck, they lack any adapter to 2.5 meter diameter at all (extremely useful for some purposes...)

Modern, yes. Two J-2.5m adapters exist. One has the 1.25m shoulders.  It's easy to miss them. It's the alphabetical placement "OPT 2.5m" causing them to show before anything else in order.

* Stock fuel tank category, immediately after Squad Mk3 tanks

 

* Custom OPT J category

10 hours ago, Northstar1989 said:

- The ISP's on the linear aerospike engines appear to be far too high for Stock KSP. They appear to be based on real-life ISP's for HydroLox. Fine values for a Real Fuels config.  But their ISP (330-430 seconds as I look at it in the editor this moment!) exceeds that for any vacuum-optimized chemical rocket engine in the Stock game: including the Wolfhound! (380 seconds ISP in vacuum).

I was given these Isp numbers by someone else and I've rolled with them for a few reasons:

1. Next to all the other OPT engines, the linear spikes have been the least playable or least attractive in my sight-- having the lowest TWR and Isp of them all. There's no way I (or anyone) could build a fanciful long-range spaceplane if they wanted, then again, the aerospike does have its niche... I really don't want to end up boxing it back into a pathetic corner. Then again, practically all the other engines have some demand of ElectricCharge along with their high Isp.
   Heck, I built something using the spike once and it could not even SSTO at stock scale. But I guess that's the OPT dry mass problem waving at me.
2. Something I rarely do, actually, I may have or could have used the Wolfhound as an excuse for the high Isp in case anyone asked. In connection with the first point, it doesn't have an EC demand. Since I stopped caring for retaining stock performance balance (see: OPT dry mass problem; Mk2 Expansion underwhelming thrust problem) I wanted the spike to visibly promise some bang for the buck.

My complaints aside... I'm building a spaceplane and well, I'm liking it now. I don't think I could say before that a single J spike could promise to let me haul 2 Ore tanks any notable  distance. And a little more potential RO appeal would be nice. (Using the word "potential" loosely.) Your changes are in and it's measured up against 2x Mainsails. But I still feel like an SSTO design should come more easily. Looks like I'll be approaching the OPT dry mass problem very soon.

I didn't yet buff the alternator output. (The Mainsail produces 12EC/s.) It's going to have to make a mad jump to 24 EC/s.

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by JadeOfMaar

[technikadonis]

Hi JadeOfMaar,

I like that OPT gets new support and new parts! But I have some "issues" with OPT:

Missing Support for Connected Living Space:

• OPT H Fuselage/Mounted Drone Core

• OPT H Fuselage/Mounted Fule Tank

• OPT J Bicoupler (for use with StationPartsExpansionRedux)

• OPT K Inline SAS Unit

• OPT K/KH Inline SAS Unit Hollow

• OPT K Bicoupler (for use with StationPartsExpansionRedux)

• OPT K Drone Core with RCS

• OPT K 3m Crew Compartment

• OPT K Mobile Lab LP4

• (OPT H Fuselage/Mounted Bicoupler) (for use with StationPartsExpansionRedux)

• (OPT J Engine Mount) (for use with StationPartsExpansionRedux)

• (OPT K - tri 2.5m Engine Mount) (for use with StationPartsExpansionRedux)

Missmatching part stats:

• OPT Crew Tank (8x Crew) vs. OPT K 3m Crew Compartment (4x Crew, better 12-16)

• OPT J Mobile Lab LP3 (5x Crew) vs. OPT K Mobile Lab LP4 (4x Crew, better 8-10)

Additional Points

• Missing "Dark Science" on OPT K Mobile Lab LP4

• Missing mounting node for 3.75m parts in the KH bays.

"Missing Parts"/suggestion for new part:

• OPT K Inline Docking Port

• OPT K Large Inline Docking Port

• OPT K Extra Large Inline Docking Port (Clamp-O-Tron Mondo Docking Port (NearFutureLauncheVehicles),...)

• OPT J/K to 3.75m Adapter

• OPT H Fuselage/Mounted Cockpit (based on OPT H Fuselage/Mounted Nose)

• OPT H Fuselage/Mounted Lab (2-3 Crew)

• OPT H Fuselage/Mounted Inline Docking Port

• OPT H Fuselage/Mounted Large Inline Docking Port

• OPT KHH Cargo Bay/Hollow Fuselage (with a second belly for hauling extra large cargo)

• OPT K/KH/KHH to 5m Adapter (for use with NearFutureLaunchVehicles/NearFutureConstruction)

• OPT K/KH/KHH to 7.5m Adapter (for use with NearFutureLaunchVehicles/NearFutureConstruction)

• OPT H/J/K/KH/KHH Ore/Ressource Tanks
• OPT H/J/K/KH/KHH Ground/Orbital Workshop (GroundConstruction)

• OPT H/J/K/KH/KHH Ground/Orbital Assembly Line (GroundConstruction)

• OPT H/J/K/KH/KHH Material Kits Storage (GroundConstruction)

Sincerely yours Thorsten

 

[JadeOfMaar]

Hey @technikadonis. I'm glad you're happy with what I've provided so far.

Connected Living Spaces:

• I've filled in the gaps.

Mismatched Part Stats

• I used the Humpback Crew Cabin (emphasis on being very spacious for long flights vs lots of seats for short flights) and my making these from the half-length K fuel tank as the measure for the crew capacities of the K cabin and lab. Thanks for pointing this out. I'll raise the K parts' capacities to 6, but I'd like a 2nd or 3rd opinion on raising this any higher.

Additional Points:

• Thanks for spotting the missing Dark Science on the K lab.
• Actually it looks like the node in KH bays for 3.75m payloads exists. It may be the node for 2.5m payloads that is missing.

Missing/New Parts:

• K inline docking ports could happen. I see the need for them for real but those will have pretty low priority. (I'm focused on non-OPT parts now.)
• K+"Double H" parts aren't happening, sorry. I feel strongly against that shape.
• I've fixed the issue(s) with Configurable Containers, which I was told is present in your install once you have AT_Utils (core mod among the "Allista Tech" mods) installed. Does that mod not allow you to set any tank to hold Ore or MaterialKits? Better complain to its dev or explore its UI some more. I'm not making Ore tanks in spaceplane shapes.
• H body is meant to complement K body so I'm not making an H lab and most likely not an H cockpit. (Though, I feel the need for an H cockpit too.)
• H fuselage cargo bay is promised. That one has high priority... And possibly an H engine mount that doesn't have that engine offset problem.
• J/K to 3.75m adapters can happen.
• I will patch the cabins into workshops but I won't make any new crewed parts for this purpose.
• I don't know what an "Assembly Line" is. Care to point me to documentation, or paraphrase/summarize?

[NHunter]

I'd actually say that K crew tank should be either 6 or 8. Definitely not more. As for K-lab, it might actually be better to increase science (not data - though 1050 I'm seeing is a weird number regardless) storage (so that you don't have to transmit it as often).

I'd also like to have a K-body deployment bay (since flipping cargo bay upside down isn't always a solution) eventually, but that's not a priority.

H-body cargo bay that could be useful for a small science-"shuttle" as a place to store the science equipment. Perhaps, its half-sized version and a half-sized fuel tank too? Either way, H-mount that actually has properly-aligned engines, I feel, is a much more needed improvement.

[technikadonis]

Hi JadeOfMaar,

I'm happy that some of my suggestions find an ear!

• K-Crew Cabin: 8 would be the same as J but with more space, thats ok.
  • if possible (crewtank=tank=interstelarfuleswitch???): having a switch option for roomy 8 long flight seats and 16 short flight (shuttle to orbit) seats (big interplanetary cruiser waiting in the orbit)?
• K-inline Docking Ports, great to hear that thy are on your list!
• J/K 3.75m Adapters would be great!
• Workshops with the same model, no problem!
• "Assembly Line", as I understood, manufactures the DIY kits. I'm learning "Ground Constructions" at the moment, so I can't explain it more detailed.
• @NHunter: K deployment bay is a very nice addition to my list, "should be easy to make, just two bottom halfs of the cargobay"
• H fuselage/mounted cargo bay: science storage, protection of solar arrays, antennas,... during reentry,... was my  intention.
• the idea behind the H mounted lab was: having a K tank and a little lab on top.
• ore tanks just were an idea, no problem.

Now waiting for the next release.

Sounds like, we don't have to wait a long time, if only the config changes are in this new release.

New models need more time, so a later release is welcome!

Edited June 10, 2020 by technikadonis

[KIMCHI]

Hey @JadeOfMaar I feel like your new extra large delta wings are underpowered with the lift,. I tried putting the new deltas on a few planes and they don't produce the lift I would have expected from such a large delta wing with tons of surface area. I think they may be a little over weighted. The Type E is listed at 84.15T which seems a bit heavy as well. Maybe a little less weight, maybe in the 60T area and more lift?

Edited June 11, 2020 by KIMCHI

[DefenderX1]

Having an issue with the Legacy parts too

Error messages: 
https://imgur.com/a/hgdKBlW

Error log:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UMY9zYeYDPeP2x-AYtP45h2WMIizv3bz/view?usp=sharing

ModuleManager log:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1leMiPZdR_PVlF4JDnhlYCdoXy4RYqvQX/view?usp=sharing

[Edit]
I forgot to mention that I'm positive that the issue lies in OPT Legacy. I remove that mod/folder and everything loads just fine.

Edited June 11, 2020 by DefenderX1
Info update

[AkaiAndromedus]

Removing KerbalAtomics seemed to fix my issue regarding the B9 Part Switch error, I don't know the correlation between the two however.

[DefenderX1]

6 hours ago, AkaiAndromedus said:

Removing KerbalAtomics seemed to fix my issue regarding the B9 Part Switch error, I don't know the correlation between the two however.

It's usually a reference to something that doesn't exist in some part config. Like how mine's referencing a "OPTAB" fuel type/option somewhere.

[KIMCHI]

So more on the wing lift. I put your original Type C wing on and my center of lift is good even with the wing offset towards the rear of the SSTO. Its about 3/5th towards the rear. Put the Type  E Delta on and offset again more towards the rear since its a delta 4/5th towards the rear and my center of lift is now at the very end of the plane. 

[doodlemh]

When I use this mod and open ksp, I get to the menu screen but cant click anything, does anyone know why?

 

[Azic Minar]

@JadeOfMaar I've been working with seeing if I can turn the OPT Retro RCS Port into an actual engine for low profile reverse thrust for slower atmo entry. And as much as I edit the file, I can get it to ignite, I've changed the plum with various edits, and still no thrust. I've even tried copying the actual engine module config from a different engine. No luck.

So I think I have a feature request? 

[JadeOfMaar]

1 hour ago, Azic Minar said:

@JadeOfMaar I've been working with seeing if I can turn the OPT Retro RCS Port into an actual engine for low profile reverse thrust for slower atmo entry. And as much as I edit the file, I can get it to ignite, I've changed the plum with various edits, and still no thrust. I've even tried copying the actual engine module config from a different engine. No luck.

So I think I have a feature request? 

That can happen easily (however, it requires that I create an empty model with just the transforms necessary for ModuleEnginesFX) but it'll have to wait for a legacy update. I don't bundle stuff for parts in Reconfig, except for plumes. As RCS its thrust is just 6 kN. As an engine, what/ how much more thrust are you looking for?

On 6/12/2020 at 2:14 PM, KIMCHI said:

So more on the wing lift. I put your original Type C wing on and my center of lift is good even with the wing offset towards the rear of the SSTO. Its about 3/5th towards the rear. Put the Type  E Delta on and offset again more towards the rear since its a delta 4/5th towards the rear and my center of lift is now at the very end of the plane. 

Sometimes the CoL calculation bugs out and weird crap like that happens. Closing/discarding the craft file and starting anew should fix it, otherwise leave the SPH, or even restart KSP.

On 6/10/2020 at 8:39 PM, KIMCHI said:

Hey @JadeOfMaar I feel like your new extra large delta wings are underpowered with the lift,. I tried putting the new deltas on a few planes and they don't produce the lift I would have expected from such a large delta wing with tons of surface area. I think they may be a little over weighted. The Type E is listed at 84.15T which seems a bit heavy as well. Maybe a little less weight, maybe in the 60T area and more lift?

The Type E is 36t dry, 84.15t when holding fuel. I can lower the dry weight but the wet weight (to fuel or not) is all up to you. And its lift rating should be pretty accurate. I haven't learned Blender so I can't do things like measure the wings up for FAR configs. I would be surprised if the lift rating I put is actually low.

On 6/10/2020 at 3:02 PM, technikadonis said:

Hi JadeOfMaar,

I'm happy that some of my suggestions find an ear!

• K-Crew Cabin: 8 would be the same as J but with more space, thats ok.
  • if possible (crewtank=tank=interstelarfuleswitch???): having a switch option for roomy 8 long flight seats and 16 short flight (shuttle to orbit) seats (big interplanetary cruiser waiting in the orbit)?
• K-inline Docking Ports, great to hear that thy are on your list!
• J/K 3.75m Adapters would be great!
• Workshops with the same model, no problem!
• "Assembly Line", as I understood, manufactures the DIY kits. I'm learning "Ground Constructions" at the moment, so I can't explain it more detailed.
• @NHunter: K deployment bay is a very nice addition to my list, "should be easy to make, just two bottom halfs of the cargobay"
• H fuselage/mounted cargo bay: science storage, protection of solar arrays, antennas,... during reentry,... was my  intention.
• the idea behind the H mounted lab was: having a K tank and a little lab on top.
• ore tanks just were an idea, no problem.

Now waiting for the next release.

Sounds like, we don't have to wait a long time, if only the config changes are in this new release.

New models need more time, so a later release is welcome!

I might do 8 seats. The lower deck of a K fuselage is part of the fuel volume and I ignore it for crewed parts. (It could make ample KIS volume? Speaking of which, I did not provide that.)

I got a heads-up from Allista on Assembly Lines. They seem to be effectively workshops with their own built-in space where the kit is made. I haven't asked whether I can config a separate part (the J Deploy Bay) for use as the assembly space by the J cabin with the workshop feature. The answer might be an obvious yes.

The wait might indeed be long. As I said, I'm focusing on non-OPT parts now. I'll return to part-making for OPT...sometime. "Soon™" as the people round here say.

[JadeOfMaar]

Reconfig 2.0.5

Download links in OP.

• Added CryoEngines support for VTOL engines. (Bah. I missed the Bubble's closed cycle mode. Will post later)
• Fixed missing support for Connected Living Spaces.
• Fixed low or imbalanced heat limits in Mk2 ram intake.
• Fixed WarpJet VTOL engines not using IntakeAtm when CRP is present.
• Fixed wings not getting WBI tanks.
• Raised K crew capacities to 6.
• Updated KIS compatibility.
  • KIS feature no longer needs WBI Pathfinder installed but still work well with it.
  • H body and most? of K body get KIS space. Space is reduced when Pathfinder not installed as to not overlap a lot with fuel space.
• Updated heat limit upgrades.
  • Fixed minor issues or shortcomings.
  • Fixed Stail Drone core not losing Ablator tank type when MFT/RF installed.
  • Split Mk2 heat upgrade into 2 upgrades.

Edited June 15, 2020 by JadeOfMaar
I missed the Bubble

[DefenderX1]

On 6/10/2020 at 8:54 PM, DefenderX1 said:

Having an issue with the Legacy parts too

Error messages: 
https://imgur.com/a/hgdKBlW

Error log:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UMY9zYeYDPeP2x-AYtP45h2WMIizv3bz/view?usp=sharing

ModuleManager log:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1leMiPZdR_PVlF4JDnhlYCdoXy4RYqvQX/view?usp=sharing

[Edit]
I forgot to mention that I'm positive that the issue lies in OPT Legacy. I remove that mod/folder and everything loads just fine.

So I think I managed to "fix" the fatal error I was getting (but the warnings still pop up).

In the "OPT_DropTank_Thermals.cfg" config file I removed the following:

		SUBTYPE
		{
			name = Super
			title = Super
			primaryColor = White
			secondaryColor = Auburn
			defaultSubtypePriority = 3
			descriptionSummary = Advanced stats in order to withstand extremes like any other OPT hull. Also holds ablative material.
			descriptionDetail = maxTemp: 1550K<br>skinMaxTemp: <color="green">2700K</color>
			TEXTURE
			{
				texture = OPT_Legacy/Parts/MiscParts/dropTank/dropTankTexture3
				shaderProperty = _MainTex
			}
			addedCost = 2100
			addedMass = 0.3
			maxTemp = 1550
			skinMaxTemp = 2700
			tankType = OPTAB
			upgradeRequired = OPTdroptankAdv2
		}

Now my game loads OK and I can finally use the Legacy parts!
I think the issues I'm getting (warnings and fatal) centers around the drop tanks. Their upgrades/fuel types aren't defined (I'm guessing) and so KSP is throwing errors.

@JadeOfMaar do you think I may be missing something? I have the required mods installed (B9PartSwitch & CommunityResourcePack) so not sure what I'm missing.

Edited June 15, 2020 by DefenderX1
Update

[JadeOfMaar]

@DefenderX1 You don't have OPT Reconfig installed.

On 4/12/2018 at 8:37 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

OPT Reconfig
Supplies highly needed config files to keep OPT Spaceplane Parts useful and alive in the absence of the original modder, @K.Yeon and in the changing KSP gameplay landscape.
It is an optional enhancement to OPT's "Main" package and it does nothing by itself, but it is required by OPT Legacy.

On 4/12/2018 at 8:37 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

Required by OPT Legacy 1.1.0 or higher.

[DefenderX1]

Sorry, I confuse easily.
I saw that you'd said it was optional for OPT and moved on since I didn't have legacy at the time. I ended up getting legacy a bit later on spacedock and didn't see the part of needing reconfig for it.

I mainly have avoided OPT Reconfig to avoid the rebalance & changes to the OPT engines. I absolutely love the OPT parts and personally view it as 100% required to have a fun experience w/ KSP so I never grabbed reconfig. It'd just be too difficult to be fun for me at this point. I love how useful & efficient the engines are and I still kinda suck at building ships so didn't want to grab the mod.

Thanks @JadeOfMaar for the info nonetheless. But 1 more question. I remember seeing a bug report somewhere about how to fix issues with the space planes spawning hundreds of meters above the runway but can't find that now. Could you point me to it? I checked the readme in OPT_Legacy but that didn't have anything relevant.

Thanks again!

Edited June 16, 2020 by DefenderX1
Dummy edits...

[JadeOfMaar]

@DefenderX1 You're welcome. The spawn problem is answered by this: https://spacedock.info/mod/1632/WorldStabilizer

I got one of the past OPT Legacy maintainers hounding me for the same thing concerning engines: Particularly one that exists because of him.

The reason for the re-balancing is so that players at large would take OPT seriously and not slam it (as much) for being OP vs whatever stock-ish alternative with stock performance.

[Azic Minar]

I just installed the newest reconfig and got the B9PartSwitch Serious warning as well, though all of the errors that popped up are on OPT with moduleID=Heatshield
The Log of Doom: https://www.audunis.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/KSPLog2.zip
I did not have the errors last night when I was using the slightly older 2.0.4 version

[DefenderX1]

9 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@DefenderX1 You're welcome. The spawn problem is answered by this: https://spacedock.info/mod/1632/WorldStabilizer.

Aha, that did it. You're the best, thanks!

Regarding Reconfig, would it be easy (for me) to pull out the files for the engine changes?

[Azic Minar]

7 minutes ago, DefenderX1 said:

Aha, that did it. You're the best, thanks!

Regarding Reconfig, would it be easy (for me) to pull out the files for the engine changes?

As someone who has been teaching himself how to mod, I think you can do it by editing files. the MainEngines.cfg is a place to start. I see some of the configs you need to work with there. Now If you selectively delete the ones that change things in ways you don't like, you'll probably have what you want. Always back up! Remember, do something wrong and your save file is BORKED. And maybe you should wait for @JadeOfMaar to answer fully. I like being helpful, but worry about being overly helpful.